Religious Endowment – Execution of Compromise Decree – Dispute between two sects of Kuruba community over custody of idols and performance of pooja to deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy – Compromise decree passed on 01.11.1933 provided for rotational pooja, joint trusteeship, and shared possession of idols and articles – Execution Petition filed in 2000 alleging non-compliance by respondents – Held: Appellants failed to prove breach or that respondents were ever in possession – Execution cannot be granted based on presumptions – High Court rightly set aside Executing Court’s order [Paras 1–2, 5–7, 23–28]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Onus on Decree-Holder – Decree-holder must prove willful disobedience or breach of decree by judgment-debtor – No evidence adduced to show rotation of idols occurred or that Rs.2,000/- was paid as per Clause (1) of decree – Decree not acted upon for decades – Mere long silence cannot be presumed as compliance – Held: Presumption cannot substitute proof in execution proceedings [Paras 24–26, 28]

Religious Practices – Implementation of Ritual Rotation – Compromise decree required rotation of idols every six months and alternating pooja every three months – Also required appointment of two trustees from each group – No material produced to prove appointment of trustees or maintenance of accounts – Admitted failure to implement decree – Held: Scheme under decree never operationalised – Absence of compliance points to continued exclusive possession by appellants themselves [Paras 25–27]

Evidence – Presumption vs Proof – Executing Court proceeded on presumption that respondents had custody due to absence of prior dispute – However, no documentary or independent evidence produced – Testimony of witnesses consisted of bare assertions – Appellants’ own witness admitted uncertainty regarding custody and non-payment of Rs.2,000/- – Held: Findings based on assumption without proof are legally unsustainable [Paras 24–26]

Execution of Consent Decree – Long Delay and Inaction – Compromise decree passed in 1933 – Execution sought only in 2000 – No proof of continuous implementation – No trustee system shown to have been followed – Non-payment of agreed amount by respondents evident – Held: Decree never acted upon – Execution barred due to lack of factual foundation [Paras 6, 7, 25–28]

Findings of Fact – High Court’s Interference with Executing Court – High Court reversed Executing Court’s order due to lack of evidence and reliance on mere inferences – Findings of fact revisited only where trial court’s findings are based on conjecture or are unsupported – Held: High Court committed no error in setting aside execution on factual grounds [Paras 13, 28–29]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No interference warranted with High Court’s judgment setting aside execution of 1933 compromise decree – Execution Petition rightly held unsustainable for lack of proof [Para 29]

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Eviction on Ground of Wilful Default – Lessee initially paid rent at Rs.33,000/- p.m. against landlord’s claim of Rs.48,000/- – Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs.2,43,600/- p.m. with effect from 01.02.2005 – Lessee neither sought nor obtained stay of fair rent order – Lessee continued paying lower amount despite finality of fair rent order – Arrears accumulated and full settlement only made on 11.01.2013 – Held: Failure to pay fair rent despite judicial determination and absence of stay constitutes wilful default – Eviction rightly ordered [Paras 21, 22, 24, 28, 32]

Rent Control – Determination of Wilful Default – Fair rent fixed by Rent Controller not stayed at any stage of appellate or revisional proceedings – Despite confirmation by appellate authority and partial modification by High Court, lessee delayed payment for several years – Payments made only in instalments and belatedly – Held: Such conduct evidences deliberate and conscious default – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act does not require notice as mandatory precondition – Rent Controller retains discretion to assess wilfulness even in absence of notice [Paras 21–28]

Civil Procedure – Effect of Appeal Without Stay – Appeal or revision against order fixing fair rent does not by itself operate as stay – Lessee cannot claim protection merely due to pendency of appeal when no stay was obtained – Judicial finality attaches to Rent Controller’s order unless stayed or overturned – Held: Non-payment during pendency without stay cannot absolve lessee of wilful default [Paras 23, 24, 29–31]

Interpretation of Statutes – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i), Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act – Two-month notice by landlord creates statutory presumption of wilful default – However, absence of such notice does not bar eviction – Rent Controller may still determine wilfulness based on tenant's conduct – Wilful default inferred from deliberate non-payment despite judicial directions – [Paras 25–27]

Tenant’s Conduct – Instalment Payments and Arrears – Tenant cleared arrears only after dismissal of SLPs and after six years from fair rent order – Arrears not cleared promptly despite legal notice and judicial pronouncements – Held: Belated payments do not negate wilfulness where delay is deliberate and unexplained – Pendency of appeal not sufficient justification [Paras 22, 29–31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Interference – High Court rightly declined interference with concurrent findings of appellate authority on wilful default – No jurisdictional error or perversity shown – Held: Revisional court need not re-appreciate facts absent material error or illegality – [Para 32]

Final Relief – Appeal dismissed – Eviction order affirmed – Appellants granted six months' time to vacate subject to filing of usual undertaking within two weeks – In default, landlord entitled to initiate execution [Paras 33, 34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction upheld – Time of six months granted to vacate upon undertaking – No costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Economic Offences – Bank Fraud – PC Act – One-time Settlement – Held: High Court erred in quashing FIR and chargesheet solely on settlement; grave financial fraud, fabrication of documents, loss to public exchequer, and involvement of bank manager under PC Act make quashing impermissible – Proceedings restored [Paras 23-27, 30-34].

Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet – Economic Offences – Public Interest – High Court quashed proceedings on basis of one-time settlement between borrower-company and bank – Supreme Court held that High Court failed to consider material findings of investigation establishing fabrication of work orders, forged mortgage documents, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy – Offences under PC Act and bank fraud cases cannot be quashed merely because dues are settled – Loss to public exchequer of more than ₹5 crores remained even after settlement – Held: Quashing erroneous; proceedings restored [Paras 23-27, 30-34].

Bank Fraud – Fabricated Documents – Misrepresentation – CBI investigation found that accused company submitted forged work orders (3 entirely fabricated, 7 misrepresented), false stock statements, and manipulated revenue records – Findings made out offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) PC Act – High Court ignored these crucial facts while quashing proceedings – Held: Quashing unsustainable [Paras 6-8, 23].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution of Bank Manager – Sanction granted – Quashing entire proceedings would indirectly exonerate public servant involved in financial misconduct – Offences under PC Act not private in nature and cannot be quashed on compromise – Public interest paramount – Held: High Court order perverse [Paras 13-14, 23-24].

One-Time Settlement – Not a Ground for Quashing – Settlement resulted in substantial haircut; bank recovered ₹41 crores against dues of ₹52 crores plus interest – Such settlements done under compulsion, not indicating absence of criminality – Economic offences have societal impact – Repayment does not wash away criminal liability – Held: Continuation of prosecution necessary in public interest [Paras 12, 26-27].

Distinguishing Prior Cases – Jaswant Singh, B.B. Aggarwal, Narendra Lal Jain – Supreme Court held those precedents inapplicable as they did not involve PC Act offences, or involved only civil-flavoured disputes, or lacked allegations of forged documents – Present case involves grave economic offences and fraud upon public exchequer – Consequently, reliance misplaced [Paras 28-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order quashing FIR and chargesheet set aside – Criminal proceedings restored before Trial Court – No observations to affect merits of trial [Paras 34-36].

Motor Accident Compensation – Permanent Disability – Minor Victim – Multiplier Method – 14-year-old appellant sustained 77.1% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident – High Court applied multiplier of 15, monthly income of ₹3,620 with 40% future prospects – Supreme Court affirmed multiplier and income but enhanced compensation under multiple heads – Held: Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- from ₹7,48,883/- [Paras 3.3, 5.1, 5.4]

Assessment of Disability – Future Prospects – Court upheld High Court’s finding accepting 77.1% disability based on unopposed medical board certificate – Future prospects added at 40% in line with Pranay Sethi principles – Loss of future earning capacity assessed by applying disability percentage to enhanced notional income [Paras 3.2, 5.1]

Special Heads of Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Medical Expenses – Applying Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Sona (Minor), and other precedents, Supreme Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects – Also granted ₹40,000 for special diet and transport, ₹50,000 for future medical expenses, ₹40,000 for attendant charges – Held: Expenses beyond actual medical bills are permissible considering hospital stay and future treatment [Paras 5.2–5.3]

Tabular Summary of Compensation:

Loss of Future Earnings (with 77.1% disability): ₹7,03,337/-

Pain and Suffering: ₹3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities: ₹80,000/-

Loss of Marriage Prospects: ₹3,00,000/-

Attendant Charges: ₹40,000/-

Special Diet and Transport: ₹40,000/-

Future Medical Expenses: ₹50,000/-

Total: ₹15,13,337/-

Interest and Directions – Additional Compensation – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to additional compensation of ₹7,64,454/- (i.e., over and above ₹5,75,883/- awarded by High Court) with 8% interest from date of application till realisation – Insurance company directed to deposit amount in appellant’s bank account within 8 weeks and file proof before Tribunal [Para 6–6.1]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- with 8% interest – Additional ₹7,64,454/- to be paid by insurer within 8 weeks – Proof of payment to be submitted before Tribunal.

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Determinability – Clause 9 of ATS interpreted – Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed in 2000 with part consideration paid and obligations imposed on both parties including land conversion, subdivision, and sale deed execution – Vendors unilaterally issued a cancellation notice in 2003 citing death of one vendor and pendency of litigation – Held: Clause 9, which stipulated that agreement would "stand cancelled" in certain events, did not create a determinable contract under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Contract not terminable at will or by mere notice – Specific performance not barred – ATS enforceable in law [Paras 45–66].

Contract Law – Unilateral Termination – Validity – Vendors' cancellation of agreement rejected – Vendors unilaterally cancelled the agreement in 2003 without refunding the substantial amount paid by vendees and without seeking judicial declaration – Grounds for termination, including death of one vendor and litigation regarding the title, found unsustainable – Subsequent attempts to deny ATS failed in cross-examination – Held: Vendors acted unilaterally and unfairly – Cancellation not valid – Agreement remained subsisting [Paras 52–56, 61–66].

Specific Relief – Bona Fide Purchaser – Protection under Section 19(b) – Denied due to constructive notice – Subsequent purchasers admitted receiving 2003 termination notice that clearly disclosed the existence and substance of ATS including names of vendees and details of transaction – Purchasers chose not to make any inquiry despite having contact details – Execution of registered sale deed after notice and during pendency of vendees' litigation deemed in bad faith – Held: Constructive notice established – Subsequent purchasers not bona fide – Protection under Section 19(b) not available [Paras 67–81].

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Evidence of continuous performance and diligence – Vendees paid ₹26,76,999 out of ₹32,00,000 under the ATS – Assisted vendors in land conversion process, corresponded continuously, promptly challenged cancellation notice, and pursued legal remedy without delay – One co-vendee relinquished rights in favour of remaining plaintiffs – Held: Plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part – Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act satisfied [Paras 82–86, 88].

Limitation – Suit for Specific Performance – Trial Court’s finding unchallenged – Trial Court found that the suit filed in 2005 was within the limitation period – No challenge raised by subsequent purchasers before High Court – Held: Limitation finding attained finality – Cannot be reopened at appellate stage [Para 87].

Transfer of Property – Constructive Notice – Statutory Interpretation – Referring to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and related definitions under General Clauses Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court held that notice can be actual or constructive – A person is deemed to have constructive notice if they had opportunity and means to know the fact and deliberately abstained from inquiry – Held: Appellants had constructive notice through notice dated 13.10.2003 – Willful abstention amounted to mala fides [Paras 67–75].

Specific Relief – Indivisibility of Agreement – One vendee relinquishing rights – Effect – Co-vendee Smt. Pratibha Kulkarni executed release deed relinquishing rights in ATS in favour of remaining plaintiffs – Trial Court and High Court held that suit remained valid and enforceable – Held: Such relinquishment does not defeat enforceability of ATS – No legal bar against remaining plaintiffs seeking full specific performance [Para 88].

Equitable Relief – Compensation to Subsequent Purchasers – Balancing equities – While upholding the decree of specific performance, Supreme Court considered that subsequent purchasers had invested ₹3.5 crores and obtained possession – Directed vendees to pay ₹18,83,001 as balance sale consideration with 16% interest from 04.10.2000 and additional ₹5 crores in equity to subsequent purchasers – Sale deed and possession to be handed over only upon such payment – Held: Relief tailored to do complete justice while preserving sanctity of original contract [Paras 90–93].

Civil Procedure – Concurrent Findings – Interference by High Court – Scope – Trial Court and High Court concurrently found the ATS valid, enforceable, and binding – Concurrent findings on readiness and willingness, limitation, and constructive notice – Held: No perversity found in factual conclusions – Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 when concurrent findings are well-reasoned [Paras 42–44, 87].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Decree for specific performance affirmed – Appellants directed to execute sale deed and hand over possession on receipt of balance consideration and additional equitable compensation – Plaintiffs to deposit ₹18,83,001 with 16% interest from 04.10.2000 and ₹5 crores in total to subsequent purchasers within 12 weeks.

DNA Testing – Presumption of Legitimacy – Criminal Proceedings – Section 112 Evidence Act – Right to Privacy – Constitution of India – DNA test sought to prove that appellant fathered child during subsistence of marriage between Respondent No.1 and her husband Abdul Latheef – Supreme Court held: statutory presumption under Section 112 protects child’s legitimacy unless non-access is proved – No material evidence of non-access or incapacity of husband produced – Birth and school records name Abdul Latheef as father – Mere allegation of extramarital affair or simultaneous access does not rebut presumption – DNA test cannot be ordered to displace conclusive proof without strong evidence [Paras 24–37]

Right to Privacy – Consent and Bodily Autonomy – DNA Test – Court reiterated that DNA testing infringes right to privacy under Article 21 – Such testing must satisfy test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality – Respondent No.1’s willingness to undergo test does not override rights of appellant and the now-major child – No legitimate state interest shown – Held: direction for DNA test is disproportionate and unconstitutional [Paras 45–48]

Adverse Inference – Section 114 Evidence Act – Refusal to undergo DNA test – Respondent sought adverse inference against appellant – Court held: such inference can only arise if presumption under Section 112 is first rebutted – Since non-access not proved, no occasion arises to invoke Section 114 – Respondent cannot bypass requirement of displacing statutory presumption [Para 50]

Criminal Procedure – Sections 53 and 53A CrPC – Medical examination of accused – High Court relied on these provisions to justify DNA test – Court held: Sections 53 and 53A applicable only where examination directly relates to proving offence – Cheating and harassment charges do not require paternity proof – Use of DNA test in absence of nexus with alleged offence is unjustified and intrusive [Paras 55–57]

Judicial Discretion – Use of Scientific Tools – Court cautioned against routine or speculative use of DNA testing – Strong prima facie case and ‘eminent need’ must be shown – Held: Scientific advancement must not override legal safeguards – Ethical and psychological implications, especially for now-major child, must be considered – DNA test cannot be directed as a fishing inquiry or to satisfy mere suspicion [Paras 28–31, 51]

Collateral Issue – Paternity not central to criminal charge – FIR does not hinge on paternity of child – Child not party to proceedings – Direction for DNA test held to be irrelevant and disproportionate to charges under IPC and Tamil Nadu Act – Held: Paternity is at best a collateral issue and DNA test unnecessary for adjudication of cheating or harassment allegations [Paras 52–54]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 10.05.2017 in Writ Appeal (MD) No.521 of 2017 set aside – Direction for DNA test quashed – Section 112 of the Evidence Act upheld – No adverse inference to be drawn from appellant’s refusal – Paternity not essential to establish offences alleged – No compelling investigative need shown.

Central Excise – Manufacture – Boilers in CKD Condition – Bought-Out Items – Final product (steam-generating plant) assembled at site using bought-out items and CKD parts – Such assembly results in immovable property – Held: Not “goods” within meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Excise duty not leviable – Valuation under Section 4 cannot determine excisability [Paras 33–44, 64].

Excise Law – Section 3 vs Section 4 – Valuation Follows Levy – Held: Section 3 is charging provision; Section 4 is machinery/valuation provision – Assessing excisability based on transaction value under Section 4 is impermissible – Transaction value relevant only if goods are excisable [Paras 41–43].

Movability – Immovable Property – Boiler Assembly at Site – Boiler parts embedded in earth using cement, bricks, asbestos and other materials – Boiler cannot be dismantled without substantial damage – Such structure is immovable – Therefore, not excisable goods under Central Excise Act [Paras 45–63].

Excise Valuation – Bought-Out Items – Cost of bought-out items delivered directly to buyer not includible in assessable value – These items never entered manufacturer’s factory and were not processed – No evidence of forming integral part of excisable goods – CESTAT erred in including their value [Paras 18–19, 66–69].

Limitation – Extended Period under Section 11A – No Wilful Suppression – All facts disclosed in statutory returns – Bought-out items duty paid by third-party vendors – No positive act of concealment or intention to evade duty – Held: Extended limitation period not invocable – Show cause notice time-barred and invalid [Paras 74–80].

CESTAT Order – Reversal of Lower Authorities – CESTAT erred in ignoring evidence and settled law – Failed to address immovability issue despite it being raised and accepted earlier – Wrongly relied on tariff headings to infer excisability [Paras 10–14, 65–67].

Excess Duty Collection – Not Determinative – Mere recovery of duty from buyer on bought-out items does not confer excisability – Proper remedy is under Section 11D, not valuation under Section 4 – Recovery mechanism distinct from liability [Paras 70–73].

Decision: Appeals allowed – CESTAT’s order set aside – Show cause notice held invalid – No excise duty payable on bought-out items or final boiler – No penalty or interest payable – Demand quashed [Paras 82–84].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 302 IPC – Conversion to Section 304 Part I – Appellant convicted for murder of deceased Louis Williams based on knife injuries inflicted during altercation – Trial Court and High Court convicted under Section 302 IPC – Supreme Court held: injuries not shown to be inflicted with intention to cause death – Death occurred 13 days later due to septicemia – No evidence of premeditation or intent to kill – Act done in anger and provocation – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 6–7]

Mens Rea – Intention vs. Knowledge – Section 304 IPC – Court analysed distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Held: Where death is caused with knowledge but without intention to kill, Section 304 Part I applies – Appellant knew that injuries with knife could cause death in ordinary course – However, no specific intent to kill found – Act committed during late-night altercation following earlier dispute – Falls under second degree culpable homicide [Paras 5.6–6.2]

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Credibility – Defence contended that only relatives of deceased were eyewitnesses – Gajraben (sister) and Rajesh (nephew) – Court held their testimony reliable – Supported by medical evidence – No material contradiction found – Conviction upheld on facts but altered on legal classification of offence [Para 5.2]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Delay in Fatal Outcome – Victim died 13 days after injury due to septicemia – Court held this did not negate causal link between injury and death – Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Medical cause of death confirmed prosecution case – Delay in death does not mitigate seriousness of offence [Paras 3.2, 6.3]

Sentencing – Sentence Already Undergone – Appellant had served over 14 years and was on bail – Court held sentence already undergone sufficient for conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC – No further imprisonment ordered – Bail bond discharged [Paras 8–10]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence of 14 years already undergone deemed sufficient – Bail bond discharged.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Maintainability of Appeal – Commercial Suit filed without Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of CCA 2015 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint amounts to a 'decree' under Section 2(2) CPC – Such decree is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – High Court erred in holding appeal to be non-maintainable [Paras 5, 9, 13-15, 20-21]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Interpretation – Main provision permits appeals against judgments and orders of Commercial Court – Proviso restricts appeals only for interlocutory orders listed in Order XLIII CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint is not an interlocutory order and not covered by the proviso – Hence appeal lies under the main provision [Paras 16-17]

Distinction from Precedent – Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works – Distinguished – In that case, rejection of application under Order VII Rule 10 or 11(d) was challenged – Court clarified only allowed orders under Rule 10 are appealable under Order XLIII – But rejection of plaint (not application) constitutes a decree, hence distinguishable and appealable [Paras 18-19]

Right to Remedy – Plaintiff whose plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless – Filing of a fresh suit not an appropriate alternative – Appeal is the proper remedy [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Appeal before High Court held to be maintainable – Restored for decision on merits – No order as to costs.